March 17, 2016. Share on Twitter
Because the federal government–and, increasingly, states no longer address fiscal disparities within states, that has provoked or invoked greater challenges for states–and increased fiscal despair for municipalities. Congressional elimination of general revenue sharing and countercyclical fiscal assistance has meant that states, such as New jersey and Michigan, for instance, now bear a burden and challenge. Will they opt for a constructive, passive, or destructive state fiscal policy?
Shutting Down a Municipality. Atlantic City Mayor Don Guardian yesterday reported that because of his city’s near insolvency (city officials have warned the city will run out of cash on April Fools’ Day), the city would be forced to halt all nonessential government services beginning in early April absent urgent state assistance: Mayor Guardian said the shutdown would start on April 8th and was likely to last until at least May 2nd, the date when quarterly tax revenues are due. During the shutdown, police, fire, and sanitation workers would perform their jobs—but without pay, which would be deferred pending receipt of taxes due; health care benefits would continue uninterrupted. Moreover, Mayor Guardian warned this was unlikely to be a one-time event, especially if the State of New Jersey does not step up with some kind of fiscal assistance, noting: “The city is in discussions with the state to avoid and forestall what may be an imminent financial predicament…Unfortunately, due to financial circumstances beyond our control, we will be forced to close City Hall.” The increasingly dire fiscal standoff comes as New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has warned he will not sign legislation to provide fiscal assistance to Atlantic City unless the New Jersey Legislature approves a state takeover of the city government. Atlantic City police union President Thomas Moynihan yesterday reported that Atlantic City’s police officers would report to work even if they “miss a paycheck or two in the meantime.”
Even though Gov. Christie claimed he had reached an agreement with New Jersey Senate President Steve Sweeney (D-West Deptford) to give the state control over the finances of Atlantic City for five years, that agreement has not secured House support, and has drawn criticism from New Jersey Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto (D-N.J), who has made clear he would not ask the House to consider state legislation to alter or terminate union contracts unless and until local and state officials reach a compromise, noting: “The governor already has authority to help Atlantic City avoid financial disaster…It’s time for Gov. Christie to do his job and use his existing authority to resolve this once and for all.” In addition, Speaker Prieto’s spokesman notes that the New Jersey Local Government Supervision Act of 1947 already allows the state to control Atlantic City’s finances and government. For his part, Gov. Christie has made clear he will not sign any bill into state law that changes even a word of the Senate version.
Atlantic City, which has seen its tax base contract 64% since 2010, is deep in debt and not only unable to issue debt through the municipal bond market because of its low credit rating, but also faces a severe contraction of its tax base in the wake of the closure of four of its twelve casinos. It now faces worse odds of avoiding a state takeover. Even though Mayor Guardian yesterday said “We are making every effort to find solutions” prior to April 1st, his plan would mean that no employees would be paid until at least May 2nd, the date the city will receive its next installment of taxes. While essential services such as public safety and revenue collections will continue, other functions will cease and City Hall will close 4:30 pm local time on April 8. Moody’s Investors Service has warned that the city could default on debt as early as next month without state action, meaning its cost of borrowing is increasing—as are the possibilities the city could file for chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy.
Unbalancing. The Michigan Municipal League yesterday reported Michigan is the only state in the country in which there was an overall revenue decline for cities, townships, and counties over the decade from 2002 to 2012, due in large measure to state cuts in revenue sharing with cities, townships, villages, and counties by $7.5 billion over the decade—assistance vital to finance essential public services and to address fiscal disparities. The League, in its report, noted that U.S. Census Bureau data finds that Michigan’s municipalities experienced an 8 percent drop in revenues from what it has experienced from failed state fiscal policies toward cities and towns, noting that, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, Michigan is the only state in the country providing fewer economic resources to its cities in 2012 than it did a decade ago in 2002, adding that the tragic outcome in Flint reflects in many ways what should have been anticipated in a state which has adopted a state fiscal policy which incentivizes new building at the expense of what currently exists: “Our system attempts to balance budgets by only addressing the cost side of the equation. We have no mechanism to invest in our cities as a way of improving the financial well-being of a community.” The League’s report further points to the extraordinary state powers under Michigan law for Emergency Managers—powers the League warns which “virtually all relate in one way or another to cutting costs,” rather than taking into consideration the provision of essential services, such as drinking water, public safety, etc.: “Cost-cutting measures, with few very exceptions, result in a reduction in the services that the community will receive. Usually those reductions do not have tragic consequences, but make no mistake: the decision to switch from the Detroit Water and Sewer Department to the Flint River was an economic one driven by state laws and policies that significantly impact and restrain local government…This decision was not about improved service, water quality, infrastructure investment, or any other altruistic goal. This was an opportunity to save money and nothing more.”
A System Designed for Failing a Municipality: The special report notes that the state law and practice of appointing Emergency Managers has proven contrary to the long-term fiscal and human sustainability of the state’s communities, noting: “By design, emergency managers are outsiders with a single mission to reduce costs. I am in no way suggesting that this decision was made with malice or without forethought, but the emergency manager and, by extension, the state has only one objective during a financial emergency. That goal is to reduce costs until the budget is balanced. It is this approach that has brought us to where we are today. Emergency managers do not have to live, long-term, with service reductions and the diminishment to the community that they bring. When they have completed the mission, they move on. They have one focus: to balance the budget by cutting expenses until they equal revenues. But this approach fails to recognize, and in fact is in direct conflict with one of the fundamental tenants of Michigan’s municipal finance model, which is that the value of a community directly impacts the revenue that a community can generate to sustain services. It’s a system designed for failure.”
Think for a moment about how cities (& counties) generate revenue. Property taxes are a function of two variables: millage rates and taxable value. What makes taxable value higher in one community versus another, is, in essence, what makes one city or village more desirable than another. Great places can command higher prices, which translate into greater taxable value. This in turn generates more revenue. It is simple math. When an emergency manager balances the books by closing parks, eliminating programs and services and forgoing investments in infrastructure, he or she) makes it a less desirable place. This, of course, diminishes the value of the city and its revenue generating power. Consequently, the city offers even fewer services, which further diminishes it as a place where people want to live, which diminishes value, and so on. It’s a death spiral — a fundamentally flawed process that will never work given Michigan’s current municipal finance model. The system is broken.
Now think of that approach in the context of Flint. What have we bought with our cost-reduction approach to balancing budgets? A significantly damaged community in both a social and economic sense. If taxes are a function of value and millage, how have property values been impacted in Flint as a result of this cost-cutting decision? I think it is fair to suggest that the property values in Flint have been severely impacted as a result of the current crisis. Which will mean deep reductions in local tax revenue, which of course will mean reductions in service, which means a diminishment of value. The death spiral continues. Sadly, our only existing mechanism to address this will be through more cuts. We need a new way forward.
Our first priority must be to address the social and health impacts Flint is experiencing. Beyond that, we must address the policy that brought us here. We must invest in our local communities. Cuts beget more cuts. It is a race to the bottom, and in this case a tragic illustration of flawed public policy. Creating vibrant, desirable communities is proven to have positive economic impact as well as social value that we have lost sight of with our current approach. We must recognize that by investing to create great places we can improve both the quality of life and the economy of a city at the same time. A cut-only approach can only diminish the strength of a community and in extreme instances like this have a devastating human impact. We must learn from this disaster and redefine how we invest in Michigan cities.